Suicidal Cyclist

brat

Tilt wrote: »

my problem is merely with irresponsible and reckless cyclists,

We can just agree to disagree. Life's too short.
Your comments speak for themselves.

Tilt

brat wrote: »

We can just agree to disagree. Life's too short.
Your comments speak for themselves.

And your responses seem to suggest that you don't have a problem with irresponsible and reckless cyclists and that I am making a mountain out of a molehill about them.

So yes, we certainly can agree to disagree as I think no one should condone reckless cyclists. Especially a police officer.

brat

Tilt wrote: »

And your responses seem to suggest that you don't have a problem with irresponsible and reckless cyclists and that I am making a mountain out of a molehill about them.

So yes, we certainly can agree to disagree as I think no one should condone reckless cyclists. Especially a police officer.

You either read and don't understand, or you have a shocking memory.

I absolutely do not condone illegal cycling. I've told you this many, many times before.
Why should I condone it?
I uphold the law. Illegal cyclists are partly responsible for the driver backlash against all cyclists, so we legal cyclists suffer more from their illegal actions, because their actions devalue cyclists in the eyes of many motorists, in turn causing motorists to be more likely to behave illegally around us.

I support cycling, and I'm keen to expose the faults of the various arguments from motorists that unthinkingly support a diminishing of the cyclists right to be on the road. I'm also keen to support the benefits of cycling in terms of less congestion, less pollution and more health benefits.

The conversation I'm keen to develop is the one with motorists who take umbrage and offence at cyclists doing certain things that are legal eg filtering, taking the primary position, using roads rather than cycle paths, not wearing fluorescent yellow tabards etc.

Some illegality, eg pavement usage, is subject of police discretion.
Other illegality, such as red light jumping, if done carefully may actually be safer for the cyclist, and is part of a bigger conversation about how to deal with junction fatalities.
Being unlit at night has no safety dividend whatsoever - perhaps we can agree on that.

Some cyclists can and should do more to help themselves and others, no question. Their careless actions result in 20 or so of them dying in RTCs every year, and killing one pedestrian every 3 to 5 years.

You suggest you're not making a mountain out of a molehill.
I've previously tried to help you understand the relative risks.
In terms of third party risk, all cyclists on pavements in the UK (whether there legally or not) kill 25 times less people than lightning does in the UK. They kill 10,000 times less than the motorist in collisions and cause about 40,000 times less overall deaths than the motor vehicle.
A ratio of 40000:1 looks a bit like mountain and molehill to me.

Those risk factors are the primary reason why more police time and resources are not spent dealing with errant cyclists. If there was a significant public risk, then more time and energy would be devoted to it.

Tilt

So why do you constantly chastise and accuse me of being prejudice against cyclists when I have constantly told you (numerous times) i'm only "prejudiced" against irresponsible and reckless cyclists?

You even say in post #372 "We can just agree to disagree" in response of me spelling it out to you!

Retrogamer

Tilt wrote: »

So why do you constantly chastise and accuse me of being prejudice against cyclists when I have constantly told you (numerous times) i'm only "prejudiced" against irresponsible and reckless cyclists?

On that basis would you agree irresponsible and reckless motorists are a much bigger concern?

Tilt

Retrogamer wrote: »

On that basis would you agree irresponsible and reckless motorists are a much bigger concern?

To other road users, yes as irresponsible cyclists normally only hurt themselves. But i've had a similar "run in" with Brat over an irresponsible motorist parked on the zig zags of a pedestrian crossing which a police car just simply drove past without batting an eyelid. "Not important enough" for a police officer to be bothered with it was more or less the response. So I don't seem to win when I mention irresponsible motorists either.

But this particular thread is about "suicidal cyclists", not motorists.

brat

Tilt wrote: »

So why do you constantly chastise and accuse me of being prejudice against cyclists when I have constantly told you (numerous times) i'm only "prejudiced" against irresponsible and reckless cyclists?

Being prejudiced against anything is not a good way to be. It means
"An adverse judgment or opinion formed unfairly or without knowledge of the facts." http://www.thefreedictionary.com/prejudiced

There are many reasons why I see you as prejudiced against all cyclists, the most obvious are

1. cyclist bashing is your favourite topic,
2. you make a mountain out of a molehill by emphasising the third party danger caused by cyclists.
3. you express faux concern about the dangers cyclists face
4. your OPs are either soaked in sarcasm, or they present a question about irresponsible cyclists that you believe the forum cyclists should be able to answer.
5. you support other peoples prejudiced views
6. you don't balance your argument or see the cyclist point of view
7. your anecdotes of the dangers cyclists place themselves and others in is not represented by the data
8. you waste no opportunity to link cycling and irresponsibility
9. you don't often denigrate motorists poor behaviour unless it serves another purpose (eg police bashing)
10. you fit the stereotype of those imbued with motoring morality [paras 8-12]
11. most contributors on your last thread see the prejudice in you too

I'll go deeper into each subject if you wish as and when I have time, but those are just a few of the reasons I assess you as prejudiced against cycling.

brat

Tilt wrote: »

To other road users, yes as irresponsible cyclists normally only hurt themselves. But i've had a similar "run in" with Brat over an irresponsible motorist parked on the zig zags of a pedestrian crossing which a police car just simply drove past without batting an eyelid. "Not important enough" for a police officer to be bothered with it was more or less the response. So I don't seem to win when I mention irresponsible motorists either.

But this particular thread is about "suicidal cyclists", not motorists.

...and of course you know that is a misrepresentation of my position. But if you need the benefit of the strawman to hold your argument together, crack on.

Tilt

brat wrote: »

Being prejudiced against anything is not a good way to be. It means
"An adverse judgment or opinion formed unfairly or without knowledge of the facts." http://www.thefreedictionary.com/prejudiced

There are many reasons why I see you as prejudiced against all cyclists, the most obvious are

1. cyclist bashing is your favourite topic,
2. you make a mountain out of a molehill by emphasising the third party danger caused by cyclists.
3. you express faux concern about the dangers cyclists face
4. your OPs are either soaked in sarcasm, or they present a question about irresponsible cyclists that you believe the forum cyclists should be able to answer.
5. you support other peoples prejudiced views
6. you don't balance your argument or see the cyclist point of view
7. your anecdotes of the dangers cyclists place themselves and others in is not represented by the data
8. you waste no opportunity to link cycling and irresponsibility
9. you don't often denigrate motorists poor behaviour unless it serves another purpose (eg police bashing)
10. you fit the stereotype of those imbued with motoring morality [paras 8-12]
11. most contributors on your last thread see the prejudice in you too

I'll go deeper into each subject if you wish as and when I have time, but those are just a few of the reasons I assess you as prejudiced against cycling.

Wow! I hope they never let you into CID as you are totally and utterly off the mark.

It's interesting that you still have a go at me when clearly my criticisms are not aimed at all cyclists but just the irresponsible and reckless ones. The fact that we don't see many statistics about these idiots dosn't mean they don't exist because they do. I saw at least 20 in as many minutes while driving down Euston Road in central London a few weeks ago. Now i'm not sure what your problem is with that and i'm struggling to understand why anyone (other than a irresponsible cyclist themselves) would attack someone with a negative opinion about such behaviour.

I will also have you know that I equally criticise irresponsible motorists. One of my pet hates is to see them park on pedestrian crossing zig zags without a care or thought for anybody else. My take is that if they continue to be allowed to get away with this type of offence, it follows that they will commit others. So at least they need "educating" which could possibly reduce the risk of a pedestrian getting knocked down. I also have a thing about the correct use of lights during poor visibility during day light hours. It's astonishing how many motorists seem not to have a clue when and what lights they should turn on in certain conditions such as persistent rain, fog, snow etc. Again, these drivers obviously need educating rather than treating such matters as "making a mountain out of a mole hill".

Plus it's nice that you think you speak for other contributors, as a police officer you should serve the public after all.

As for going deeper into "each subject" well no need to bother because you have already dented my perception of the attitude of a typical police officer enough.

Tilt

brat wrote: »

...and of course you know that is a misrepresentation of my position. But if you need the benefit of the strawman to hold your argument together, crack on.

No, I don't think so. You came out with all the excuses... er, reasons under the sun why the police car just sailed past. Most of the... er, reasons you gave all added up to the offence not being important enough.